Trouble in Bolivia?

[Dinner]

Re: Re: Trouble in Bolivia?

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Given your past history, I'm sure you'll side with the exploiters and thieves rather than the workers and peasants.

Lula shows that there is a way to greater social justice without resorting to theft and the politics of envy. If Morales wants to simply steal from the opposition to give to his supporters then no he isn't worth supporting.

[Seeker]

"Since the new owners are his political supporters and not random qualified people(as per Zimbabwe)"

..errr...not to nitpick or anything, but wasn't that famously the exact problem in Zim, that the farms were doled out to political supporters as rewards, rather than to people with any skill at modern farming or sentimental motive for the highly skill-intensive work needed to maintain a modern industrial farm? Or are you just being sarcastic?

[Whoha]

erm yea, I was saying that it was probably going to turn up like zimbabwe, not that it probably wasn't going to turn up like zimbabwe.

[Dinner]

I just can't see how a race based redistribution of property can ever be just.

[Patroklos]

Che, it doesn't sound like Morales is trying to enfranchise native peoples, they can already vote.

So no, this is not good. He is doing exactly what Oerdin said, which is give one group more voting power than another based soley on race.

Though I am not suprised you support him, I am sure he has a Che poster on his wall and wears OBEY t-shirts. Just your kind of guy.

[Nugog]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Nugog - you mis the point that you can't be racist aginst honkeys - only honkeys can be called racists .

[Zkribbler]

This story is from the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

Leftists approve new constitution for Bolivia; opposition cries foul

By Patricio Crooker and Jack Chang, McClatchy News Service; December 9, 2007 -


LA PAZ, BOLIVIA - After 16 tumultuous months of debate, allies of Bolivia's leftist President Evo Morales hurriedly approved nearly all of a new constitution Sunday after a marathon overnight session.

The proposed constitution would grant more power to Bolivia's indigenous majority; abolish the opposition-led Senate; impose more state control over natural gas, minerals and other natural resources, and permit presidents to be elected to two consecutive five-year terms, a proposal that Morales' opponents call an authoritarian power grab.

Bolivian voters must approve the constitution in a referendum tentatively scheduled for as late as September. The assembly, which met in the mining town of Oruro, failed to approve only one article by the required two-thirds vote. That measure, which limits the size of private land holdings and was opposed by agribusiness interests, will be the subject of a separate referendum.

Morales called the charter a "giant new political constitution for the Bolivian state" and said it would usher in the "dignification" of the country.

Indigenous groups, miners and other Morales loyalists took to the streets and celebrated the 411-article charter as the start of a new era for this impoverished country of 9.1 million people. Opposition leaders largely boycotted the constitutional assembly, called the document illegal and pledged to start protests against it.

"It's overall not a bad constitution, but the problem is the official party didn't listen to anybody else," said Samuel Doria Medina of the opposition National Unity party. "It seems this matter of presidential reelection was Morales' final goal all along."

Former President Jorge Quiroga, head of the opposition party Podemos, said the assembly had broken its own rules by convening this weekend session less than 24 hours in advance and hadn't achieved a two-thirds majority because 90 of the assembly's 255 members were absent.

Except for the unspecified "more power to Bolivia's indigenous majority," the changes don't seem all that bad.

Two 5-year terms as Prez, while we in the U.S. have two 4-year terms. It's hard for us to say it's horrible. Abolishing the Senate. Well, the Brits have functionally done away with the House of Lords and have replaced their old lords with what is functionally a second House of Commons. Morales has made no secret that his wants to give more political power to the many poor by taking it from the few rich.

I see nothing as yet which is horrendous.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Well, the Brits have functionally done away with the House of Lords and have replaced their old lords with what is functionally a second House of Commons.

Hardly a second House of Commons. They have reformed the House of Lords to replace one unelected group with another unelected group.

[Berzerker]

In a democracy all people are supposed to be equal - "greater representation" usually means an un-equal amount of influence for one group based on their ethnicity - which is racist no matter how you try and phrase it.

The proposed Constitution was to be a referendum - majority rules

[Dinner]

Calling the conference with only 24 hours notice and voting while 35% of the, who were mostly opposition, delegates were not there hardly seems fair.

[Berzerker]

I thought the article said they boycotted the conference.

[Dinner]

Hmm, even so having a conference missing 35% of the delegates seems wrong. Setting it more then 24 hours prior might have given people enough time to decide to attend. It's very short notice.

[Berzerker]

short notice for politicians, this mess has been going on for more than a year.

[Dinner]

It will be interesting to see how the declarations of autonomy play out. Morales might declare them invalid and then again maybe the rich provinces will decide to fight the redistribution.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Oerdin
It will be interesting to see how the declarations of autonomy play out. Morales might declare them invalid and then again maybe the rich provinces will decide to fight the redistribution.

And I'm sure that most of the generals and officer corp. are made up of upper-class people.